In this way the external causes are associated with evolution, but with very different effects from those attributed to them by Darwin, who endowed them with the creative power to produce new organs and new forms of life.
Naegeli compared the internal forces to invested capital; it will draw a higher or lower rate of interest, according as its environment proves to be more or less favourable to earning a profit.
The most modern theory of evolution is that of De Vries, who, after having witnessed the spontaneous and unforeseen transformations of a certain plant, the Œnohtera Lamarckiana, without the intervention of any external phenomenon, admitted the possibility of the unexpected occurrence of other new forms, from a preexistent parent form—and to such phenomena he gave the name of mutations.
It is these mutations that create new species; the latter, although apparently unheralded, were already latent in the germ before they definitely burst into life. Consequently, new species are formed potentially in the germinating cells, through spontaneous activity.
The characteristics established by mutations are hereditary, and the species which result from them persist, provided their environment affords favourable conditions, better suited to them than to the preexisting parent form.
Accordingly new species are created unexpectedly. De Vries draws a distinction between mutations and variations, holding that the latter are dependent upon environment, and that in any case they constitute simple oscillations of form around the normal type determined in each species by mutation.
Species, therefore, cannot be transformed by external causes or environments, and the mechanism of transformation is not that of a succession of very gradual variations, which have given rise to the familiar saying: natura non facit saltus. On the contrary, what produces stable characteristics is a revolution prepared in a latent state, but unannounced in its final disclosure. A parallel to this is to be found, for example, in the phenomena of puberty in its relation to the evolution of the individual.
Now, when a species has once reached a fixed stability as regards its characteristics, it is immutable, after the analogy of an individual organism that has completed its development; henceforth its further evolution is ended. In such a case, the oscillations of variability are exceedingly limited, and adaptation to new environments is difficult; and while a species may offer the appearance of great strength (e.g., certain species of gigantic extinct animals), it runs the risk of dying out, because of a lower potentiality of adaptability; or, according to the theory of Rosa, it may even become extinct spontaneously.
Accordingly it is not the fixed species that continue the process of evolution. If we compare the tree of life to a plant, we may imagine evolution as soaring upward, sustained by roots far below; the new branches are not put forth by the old branches, but draw their sustenance from the original sources, from which the whole tree draws its life. When a branch matures and flowers, it may survive or it may wither but it cannot extend the growth of the tree.